Manohoran v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtImmigration Appeals Tribunal
Judgment Date01 June 1998
Date01 June 1998
HX/66198/96(17607)

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

His Honour Judge D S Pearl (President) Lady Bonham-Carter JP, Mrs M L Roe

Thiruchelvah Jackson Manoharan
(Appellant)
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent)

Miss S Jagarajah for the appellant

A Mole for the respondent

Cases referred to in the determination:

Rasaratnam v Minister of Employment and Immigration [1992] 1 FC 706: [1992] 140 NR 138.

Thirunavukkarasu v Minister of Employment and Immigration [1993] 109 DLR (4th) 682.

Koyazia Kaja v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 1.

Senithirajah Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 97.

Bambagu Manzeke v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 524.

Anthonypillai Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1997] Imm AR 568.

Michel Mario v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] Imm AR 281.

Sayandan (unreported) (16312).

Asylum citizen of Sri Lanka internal flight option whether on the facts unduly harsh or unreasonable for appellant to be returned to Colombo the standard of proof to be applied in determining the reasonableness of the internal flight option.

The appellant was a citizen of Sri Lanka. He had been refused asylum by the Secretary of State. He appealed. His appeal was dismissed by a special adjudicator, on the basis that the internal flight option was open to him. He was refused leave to appeal to the Tribunal but was granted leave after judicial review proceedings.

Before the Tribunal it was argued, relying on Sayandan that it would be unduly harsh and unreasonable to return the appellant to Colombo, it being accepted that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in the Jaffna area.

Held:

1. Neither separately nor cumulatively on the facts, would it be unduly harsh or unreasonable to return the appellant to Colombo, Sayandan distinguished.

2. In assessing whether it was unreasonable or unduly harsh to return an appellant to an area which engaged the alternative of internal flight, the standard of proof to be applied was the normal civil standard of balance of probabilities: the burden of discharging the standard of proof lay on the appellant.

Determination

The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who appeals to the Tribunal against the determination of a special adjudicator, Mrs E S Martins, who dismissed his appeal against the refusal of leave to enter. He claimed asylum.

Leave to appeal was initially refused, but this determination was quashed by order of the High Court on 27 November 1997. In consequence leave was granted.

The Treasury Solicitor helpfully has provided a note of the judgment of Laws J. It says:

When one reads the special adjudicator's determination, in particular page 8 to the end, it seems to me it was incumbent on the adjudicator to deal more specifically with the distinct arguments advanced at pages 78 particularly as to the effect of the new regulations on the life of Tamils in Colombo. They were made in 1995. The applicant arrived here in 1993. The special adjudicator asked the right questions when (page 9) she refers to the issue of whether it was unreasonable for the applicant to live in Colombo but has not acknowledged the change since the applicant left and the difficulties which were highlighted in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

It is common ground that the appellant in this case is a Tamil from Jaffna born in 1969 and who arrived in the United Kingdom in 1993 claiming asylum on his arrival. The adjudicator made three findings of fact:

(i) he would be at risk of persecution from the LTTE if he were to be returned to Jaffna; and

(ii) he had not experienced any difficulties, such as arrest or detention during the two-week period that he was in Colombo, he is fairly well-educated, and he had family in Jaffna who would assist him; and

(iii) if as a result of lack of identity documents, he were at risk of detention in Colombo, then this would not amount to persecution.

The issue in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Nalliah Karanakaran v Secretary of State for The Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 January 2000
    ...has held that the applicant has to show on the balance of probabilities that it would be unduly harsh to send him back to that part (see Manohoran [1998] Imm AR 455). Another division, headed by Professor Jackson, a vice-president of the tribunal, decided eight months later that the applic......
  • R (Chinder Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 4 August 1998
  • The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 July 2000
    ...of proof was the ordinary balance of probabilities. He referred to the case of Manohoran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] Imm AR 455. He observed that there were large Sikh communities in many parts of India, in which Punjabi would be spoken. In any event, he considered t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT